January 24, 2014

Recent research (Sherwood at al, Nature, 02 January 2014) indicates that a warmer Earth will heat the lower-altitude atmosphere and reduce cloud formation. This will reduce the shading of solar energy and thus increase the rate of global warming. We can counteract with solar-heated evaporator rafts, which evaporate moisture more efficiently than the bare ocean surface, thus helping to restore clouds. Evaporator rafts will also stop solar radiation from penetrating into the ocean depth and thus decrease the heat stored in the ocean. Evaporator rafts upwind from mountains will increase rainfall and help overcome drought. My experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of black solar-absorbing surfaces floating just below the ocean surface to heat the thin layer of water above the solar absorber to a high temperature and encourage evaporation. These solar absorbers would be assembled into large rafts moored in sheltered coastal waters, such as San Francisco Bay, San Diego Bay, and the Gulf of California.

Coming down the road is a Federal CAFÉ mandate on fleet mileage of 54.5 mpg by 2025 and the EV, which can yield 100 MPGe, will be in the mix of fleets to make it possible for car manufacturers to meet this requirement. Just now “fleet” is defined as including ALL the models sold by a particular manufacturer.BTW the writer has not been able to see what “weighting rules” will be allowed in the calculation. But just now the current administration is swinging in the direction of forcing significant vehicle weight reduction as being the “correct” way to improve the mileage on all vehicles.

So far FORD has responded with a 150 Series pickup (very popular seller) that is fabricated using aluminum rather that steel. This is NOT the first such attempt but it is the first on a major “good seller”------significant risk for FORD. GM somewhat behind FORD plans to introduce a new pickup line also fabricated from aluminum. In the current administration’s, “leading from the rear” they are enthustacily endorsing FORD’s efforts while keeping a good distance to assure deniability if it doesn’t work out. In the case of the FORD 150 the weight reduction is 700 pounds, a significant reduction and will improve the MPG figure from mid-twenties to about 35 MPG. Now notice that this is far away from the 54.5 mpg of the CAFÉ mandate BUT, again leading from the rear, it is still being pushed as the right thing to do.

This is NOT the first vehicles to be made of aluminum and it is worth seeing what kinds of problems are encountered to get the 700 pound weight saving. A side note, Henry Ford when he introduced the V8 in the early ‘30s made the engine blocks from aluminum. But this was quickly dropped because of cylinder wear problems leading to high oil consumption. But back to now. First off the plant has to have forming and finishing machines designed to work aluminum. FORD is changing over one of its plants to accommodate the new aluminum fabricating machinery. Aluminum is an active material and will react to either acid or base. And as with steel, the Japanese found that the steel had to be chemically coated at the time of manufacture to achieve satisfactory life from their cars. In the Japanese case they wanted to use high carbon steel to get the strength in thin gauges which aggravated the corrosion. They were able to do this and it is Japanese law if the vehicle is to be sold in the US. A very similar process will be necessary for the aluminum fabrication and indeed FORD is doing just that----chemical coating that is inside and outside the frame and body parts to prevent corrosion. At least initially FORD will have to charge more for such processing and indeed the administration, again leading from the rear, is promising financial aid to help with the cost of developing the chemical coating.

In the weight reduction department BMW in their i3 is using high strength plastics to reduce the curb weight by 1000 pounds. As they get this technology more mature chances are that they will come close, if not meet the 54.5 mpg CAFÉ’ requirement. It appears that the EPA people were not apprized of BMW’s intentions. A BMW spokesperson expressed concern about information of what they were planning would be leaked to competitors.

January 15, 2014

After nearly a year of no problems with its batteries, a Boeing 787 battery started smoking on Tuesday, January 7, 2014. Japan Airlines has yet again grounded one of its Boeing 787 Dreamliner jets after the plane's lithium ion battery started smoking. The incident comes nearly a year after the worldwide grounding of all 787 jets over other battery fires.

Japan Airlines reported that maintenance engineers were in the cockpit when they saw white smoke outside the plane. When they returned from checking on the smoke outside, warning lights were flashing. One of the main battery’s eight cells had failed, and liquid was leaking out. The failure of that one cell did not result in a fire. Recall that the 787 used two identical 8-cell packs providing starting currents and providing auxiliary power for the remaining aircraft functions. The loads are completely different between the two packs. The starting current drain is short term with a high peak value and rapid recharge. This is the pack position that usually has the problem if it occurs.

The incident is a blow to Boeing’s 787 program, which was plagued with delays and structural problems. After nearly a year of no incidents, Boeing officials claimed a flawless record since the last problems with the 787. In a statement on Tuesday, Boeing said the improvements made to the battery system after the smoking incidents appear to have worked. Officials with the aerospace giant told reporters several days ago that not a single lithium ion battery cell in a 787 had failed since the plane was recertified for flight last spring.

Last year's grounding was sparked by a 787 battery fire on the ground at Boston’s Logan Airport. Later, a smoke incident forced the emergency landing of a plane in Japan.

The National Transportation Safety Board said it plans to complete its investigation of the Logan fire in March 2014. It appears to the writer that although the safety aspects are mostly solved, that the responsible technical people have no agreed upon consensus as to the exact sequence that was involved in the past fires. Troubling.

January 05, 2014

I have been watching the wind patterns in two areas on our west coast where solar-heated evaporator rafts would be sheltered from the pounding Pacific surf: the Gulf of California, and the San Francisco Bay. These rafts would enhance rainfall during seasons when the water vapor is forced up mountain slopes by the prevailing wind. The resulting expansion, cooling , condensation, and precipitation, referred to as orographic rainfall, would provide fresh water for agriculture and other purposes. During much of the year, the wind direction is not favorable for producing orographic rainfall. The rafts then produce water vapor which eventually precipitates back into the ocean. I have regarded this precipitation as useless. However, the condensation of the vapor in the atmosphere enhances clouds, which reflect sunlight. This reduces the solar heating of the land and ocean.

Clouds also block the infrared radiation from Earth to space, so there has always been the question of whether clouds result in a net warming or cooling of the Earth. A paper published recently in Nature examined the climate sensitivity predicted by 43 different climate models. Climate sensitivity is defined as the increase in world temperature caused by a doubling of the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere. The models predict climate sensitivities ranging from 1.5 C to 4.5 C. The researchers found that models which predicted less than 3.0 C rise also predicted far too many low-altitude clouds and could not be trusted. The inference from the study is that the climate sensitivity is 3.0 C or greater. I infer from the discussion that the clouds have a net cooling effect.

The authors explain that warming increases the convection in the lower atmosphere and dries out the clouds. But it seems to me that solar-heated evaporator rafts will produce increased water vapor and reduce the drying. This will increase the shading of the Earth. Evaporator rafts use a dark solar absorber plate that floats just below the water surface. The solar radiation heats the thin layer of water above the absorber, and some solar energy is carried aloft by the latent heat of the vapor. Without the absorber plate, the sunlight would penetrate to considerable depth and be completely absorbed in the ocean. Thus we get the shading of the absorber plate in addition to the cloud shading.

The qualitative explanation is easy. The real problem is coming up with quantitative performance and economic estimates.

January 03, 2014

The writer has been questioned,”How can an EV make 100 MPGe?” and, “If an EV can do that, why can’t any ICE powered car do the same thing?” The explanation is buried in how the cost of the fuel is calculated, and also the efficiency of generating electric power for recharging the batteries.

In doing these calculations the writer has standardized upon gasoline costing $3.50 per gallon which include road taxes etc. This is an immediate tipoff since the electric power as generated for general industrial and home use does NOT have a road tax, at least as yet. Electric power here on Long Island costs about 22 cents/kWh. Once you get off LI the going rates do not exceed 14 cents/kWh. So here on LI, $3.50 will buy about 16 kWh of energy. Once off the Island the same $3.50 will buy at least 25 kWh or more. Some states charge only 5 cents per kWh so in that case you can buy 70 kWh.

Typical battery size for an EV powering you for 100 miles is 22 kWh. So if you assume the net charge/discharge efficiency is 0.8 or 80% that yields 22/0.8=27.5 kWh to completely recharge the EV battery to drive the vehicle 100 miles. Just a little more arithmetic yield that $3.50 will do the recharge for the 100 miles so long as you don’t pay more $.13 per kWh. That is anywhere in the US!

This is all very good news, but many readers are quick to point out that petro fuels are being burned either in the car engine OR at the power plant generating the electricity so how can there be such a difference? A partial explanation is that with the availability of natural gas, NG, the efficiency at the power station IS nearly double what you can achieve burning it in a ICE. The writer predicts that in a few years all electricity will be generated using NG if at all possible. The plants run much cleaner and the exhaust gases are principally only water vapor and CO2 and the CO2 is more easily captured if required to do so by regulations.

The remaining question is what about road taxes? Just at the moment that is no road tax on electrical energy------But politicians, particularly Liberals, will see this as a major source of new revenue that they can spend for new projects. The writer’s opinion is that I don’t object that strenuously to a nominal road tax with the proviso, “That it has to be used for highway maintenance ONLY and cannot be pushed into a general fund and used at the discretion only of the politicians.”

January 02, 2014

This writer has written BLOGS discussing the EV (electric only) vehicle and its many problems. An example of an EV is the Nissan LEAF-----and there are nearly 20 offerings by other manufacturers. Fairly typical of an EV, a) It will have a range on a charge of approximately 100 miles, b) It will require at least a Level 2 charging outlet, and 3) It will have a very costly battery costing more than half the price charged for the car. Sales of the Nissan LEAF and others have not be up to expectations----the main complaint is the cost of the battery and nearly prohibitive cost should the battery require replacement.

So why is there the intense interest in getting people to buy EVs? Coming down the road is a Federal CAFÉ mandate on fleet mileage of 54.5 mpg by 2025 and the EV, which can yield 100 MPGe, will be in the mix of fleets to make it possible for car manufacturers to meet this requirement. Just now “fleet” is defined as including ALL the models sold by a particular manufacturer.BTW the writer has not been able to see what “weighting rules” will be allowed in the calculation.

The high cost for the battery cannot really be justified if the production quantity increases. Right now there are only a couple of Asian manufacturers that offer the batteries, BTW the only US manufacturer has been put of that business essentially by our own EPA. That can be changed by law if necessary. But the writer is concerned that more to the point owners of EVs have an anxiety about running out of charge far enough from a charging station that they will have to put up with the inconvenience of a tow. The writer must confess that in test driving an EV this was not much of a concern but he is likely in the minority.

In a recent BLOG I discussed the BMW i3 that steps around this problem by providing a 2-cylinder ICE driving an alternator to provide recharge current when the SOC (status of charge) of the battery indicates.BTW this scheme was offered in the original GM VOLT, but dropped. In this manner they, on a daily basis, go about 100 miles and simply recharge overnight. Should the trip require more than 100 miles they simply start the ICE and can continue up to about 350 miles per day before needing to get gasoline. This BTW is what owners of the latest PRIUS do also----they drive up to about 20 miles per day and the ICE starts automatically. Drive satisfaction with the PRUIUS is high and I know several people that have more than one even though it is expensive.

So just now the PRIUS and now maybe the BMW i3 are the most likely candidates for meeting the 54.5 MPG, upcoming Federal requirement. Other manufacturer will I think follow suit as BMW has and coax customers to buying the EV, albeit modified,